Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => Gear => Topic started by: Ninja137 on <05-04-13/1734:00>
-
Can a mage target someone in full body armor with a polarized faceplate with a Manabolt, or does the fact that they can't actually see the person themselves not matter? How would it work if you had a Drone made to look like a person suited up with Milspec armor, wouldn't it effectively be the same? It makes sense that since you need LoS to the person, and that you can't see the actual person in full body armor, that it would not allow targeting except for Indirect Spells.
-
Their aura or whatever is still visible through the armour. Though, perhaps if they had the entire suit lined with glow moss or whatever mana barrier plant it is they grow, the mage would probably not be able to target him, though he could just throw a blast spell at him to the same effect; not to mention shrub warrior might not be too effective of a combatant to really warrant it in the first place.
-
Can a mage target someone in full body armor with a polarized faceplate with a Manabolt, or does the fact that they can't actually see the person themselves not matter?
Street Magic, pg 160:
Line of Sight (LOS): The spell can target anything the caster
can physically see or assense, regardless of the distance (see p.
173, SR4). The caster may not target anything that is completely
behind cover or otherwise obscured. Since the caster only needs
to see part of the target, a Perception Test may be necessary to
see if the caster can spot enough of the target to cast. Visibility
modifiers apply to the Spellcasting Test. Note that full body
armor does not “conceal” the person within and prevent them
from being targeted.
Rules say that full body armor doesn't prevent targeting.
How would it work if you had a Drone made to look like a person suited up with Milspec armor, wouldn't it effectively be the same?
I would treat it the same, yes. It seems the intent was not to allow 'armor' to prevent magical targeting, so I don't see how the intent would be different for a drone.
There's very few drones out there that can were metahuman armor, I'm sure this won't come up too much.
-
It doesn't make sense, though. Someone hiding behind a thin sheet of paper that fully obscures them is untargetable by a Manaball, but a person in full body armor with a polarized faceplate can be targetted just fine despite you being unable to see ANYTHING of the actual person?
-
To give an example, think of it like this.
If you take a Heavy Milspec Full-Body Armor Suit which is large enough to cover you from sight so that you cannot be seen by a mage, yet he is aware of you being there, he cannot target you at all.
However, if you WEAR that same suit of armor which has a Chem Seal so that even AIR is incapable of getting in, and has a polarized facemask so he cannot see your face, he can target you perfectly fine.
That is, quite bluntly, absolutely idiotic and in need of a change. Indirect Physical Combat spells would be capable of effecting you simply because they can cause physical manifestations of things, like a massive fireball of lightning bolt. But for Direct Combat that doesn't actually travel between caster to target, and requires LoS? Hell no. That's stupid.
-
Wearing it brings it into/makes it part of your aura.
-
Wearing it brings it into/makes it part of your aura.
Does getting inside a car enable the car to be targetted with Mana spells? Does driving it? Does rigging it? What about if it's a Technomancer doing it? What about if a Cyborg is directly hooked up to a car?
-
If the car transformed into a piece of armor that you wore, sure.
-
If the car transformed into a piece of armor that you wore, sure.
The car would grant you additional armor if you were to be shot at while inside of it.
Like, I am all for mages being able to blow peoples brains out of their ears through armor, but it makes zero sense. Non-living/Foci things show up on the astral, albeit in a greyed out and non-detailed manner. You have a suit of armor covering you head to toe, in multiple layers of protection from various layers of armor materials, biomonitor fabrics, and other whatnot. You are not capable of being seen from the outside of this armor aside from the faceplate, which in this instance is polarized and unable to be seen through.
You, yourself, as in the actual person and aura, are incapable of being seen from the outside. Not even air molecules or chemicals can enter the atmosphere of your armor with a chem seal engages, let alone leave a large enough gap to allow visibility through. You cannot be targetted by direct spells. It doesn't make any form of sense at all. It breaks immersion entirely.
And if you're going to claim that the armor is included in an aura, please provide me with a specific page and book so that I can see it.
-
Sorry, my searching skills are lacking today. I asked a similar question a month or two ago, and this was the explanation given. As for citing a book, why? You're already ignoring the book, so why would citing more help? The book says full armor doesn't prevent spell targeting. I offered up a way for you to rationalize it.
-
Yet another example would be attempting to target a person in the middle of a building through a concrete wall while in the meat. You couldn't do it.
The books say that an aura radiates light on the astral and glows, and you seem to be effectively targetting the aura of a thing with Mana spells. Trying to detect the aura of a person within a suit of armor with zero openings would be like attempting to see the light of a lightbulb through three inches of solid layers armor plating. You couldn't.
-
Sorry, my searching skills are lacking today. I asked a similar question a month or two ago, and this was the explanation given. As for citing a book, why? You're already ignoring the book, so why would citing more help? The book says full armor doesn't prevent spell targeting. I offered up a way for you to rationalize it.
Because your rationalization is crap. A thing doesn't make sense, so you give an answer. Answers are nice, usually. But when the answer is wrong, with zero source, with zero backup, no proof, and for all I am able to tell incorrect with the exception that the rules simply tell me that you may target a person who is effectively invisible from you, your answer is a bad answer. It would be like telling a researcher who spent his time attempting to figure out exactly how a digestive system works that it works because of magic, or that god intended it to work. Yeah, it's an answer technically, but it doesn't actually DO anything as an answer. It doesn't really answer the question.
-
Here's the answer. Street Magic, p. 160, "Note that full body armor does not "conceal" the person within and prevent them from being targeted." A person, 100% clear answer with no rationalization. Why does full body armor not conceal you from magic? Because the rulebook says it doesn't.
-
Here's the answer. Street Magic, p. 160, "Note that full body armor does not "conceal" the person within and prevent them from being targeted." A person, 100% clear answer with no rationalization. Why does full body armor not conceal you from magic? Because the rulebook says it doesn't.
And does the rulebook make sense? No, it does not. It says that Non-Living things show up on the astral
Any non-living objects
appear as faded semblances of their physical selves, gray and lifeless,
while the auras of living things are vibrant and colorful.
Non-magical and non-living objects have only gray, lackluster
shadows rather than auras, but pick up impressions from being
in contact with living auras.
both from page 191 Shadowrun 4A. If a lightbulb was contained within a box made of four inch thick steel, the light emitted from it would not be visible from outside of the box nor would the bulb be visible, excluding the addition of a camera to the inside of the box. If an animal was placed inside of the same box, it would not be visible from the outside of the box. It would not be targetable by direct spells. There is no logical reason that the fact an item is being used for the purposes of armor and protection that it magically allows whatever is inside to be targetted from the outside. If that was the case, you would be able target people hiding inside of a concrete bunker twenty feet thick simply because you can see a corner of the building. The bunker covers your entire body from the outside world, and is being used as full body armor, so by the logic of the rules it doesn't make any sense.
In any games I were to run, or any game I was to play in, I would either change the rules or talk to the DM and houserule it because otherwise it makes absolutely zero sense. It might not be the rules as written, but it makes no sense otherwise.
-
The rule has been provided. If you don't like the provided explanations, feel free to suggest another one. However, your argument has a serious flaw: You don't target the armour with a direct mana spell, but the person wearing it - specifically the person, not the aura. Which is also way armour's not part of how you resist that spell - which is why the car example isn't remotely the same thing.
What you wear is part of what the mage perceives as "you", and thus doesn't interfere with targeting. That sort of thing makes a difference with magic.
Note that if mana spells targeted auras, you'd have to be astrally perceiving to cast them. This is not the case. Further, you're suggesting a pretty terrible houserule.
-
Sorry, my searching skills are lacking today. I asked a similar question a month or two ago, and this was the explanation given. As for citing a book, why? You're already ignoring the book, so why would citing more help? The book says full armor doesn't prevent spell targeting. I offered up a way for you to rationalize it.
Because your rationalization is crap. A thing doesn't make sense, so you give an answer. Answers are nice, usually. But when the answer is wrong, with zero source, with zero backup, no proof, and for all I am able to tell incorrect with the exception that the rules simply tell me that you may target a person who is effectively invisible from you, your answer is a bad answer. It would be like telling a researcher who spent his time attempting to figure out exactly how a digestive system works that it works because of magic, or that god intended it to work. Yeah, it's an answer technically, but it doesn't actually DO anything as an answer. It doesn't really answer the question.
Ninja, just because you don't like an answer doesn't make it wrong. MtFeeny quoted the RAW. Anything else are houserules, which your entitled to use to your heart's content.
Also, wearing something is not the same as being in a vehilce or a building. Aura's (a magical fictional concept which obeys its own rules) extend to include your cyberware and what you are wearing. Now would it extend to include somesort of mecha-style armour? Not sure, probably not. But it wouldn't extend to include something your sitting in or the building your in. So then, once you accept that what your wearing doesn't block line of sight, everything becomes so much more straight forward. Can you see the person? Yes, you can target them (keeping in mind that cover saves etc may apply). Can't see them? Can't target them.
Edit- Like RHat explanation much better.
-
Remember mana magic targets living auras.
It's a little abstract, but think of it this way. Putting on a suit of armor is making it a part of your essential 'me'-ness. Standing behind a piece of paper does not, nor does getting into a car. The spell targets your essential 'me'-ness, your living aura.
-k
-
Sorry, my searching skills are lacking today. I asked a similar question a month or two ago, and this was the explanation given. As for citing a book, why? You're already ignoring the book, so why would citing more help? The book says full armor doesn't prevent spell targeting. I offered up a way for you to rationalize it.
Because your rationalization is crap. A thing doesn't make sense, so you give an answer. Answers are nice, usually. But when the answer is wrong, with zero source, with zero backup, no proof, and for all I am able to tell incorrect with the exception that the rules simply tell me that you may target a person who is effectively invisible from you, your answer is a bad answer. It would be like telling a researcher who spent his time attempting to figure out exactly how a digestive system works that it works because of magic, or that god intended it to work. Yeah, it's an answer technically, but it doesn't actually DO anything as an answer. It doesn't really answer the question.
Ninja, just because you don't like an answer doesn't make it wrong. MtFeeny quoted the RAW. Anything else are houserules, which your entitled to use to your heart's content.
Also, wearing something is not the same as being in a vehilce or a building. Aura's (a magical fictional concept which obeys its own rules) extend to include your cyberware and what you are wearing. Now would it extend to include somesort of mecha-style armour? Not sure, probably not. But it wouldn't extend to include something your sitting in or the building your in. So then, once you accept that what your wearing doesn't block line of sight, everything becomes so much more straight forward. Can you see the person? Yes, you can target them (keeping in mind that cover saves etc may apply). Can't see them? Can't target them.
Edit- Like RHat explanation much better.
You pay for Cyberware with Essence. It is literally a part of you, connected to you rather thoroughly both physically and spiritually. It is literally an extension of your body.
I'm not talking about the RAW of the issue at this point, and as I already said I am fully aware of that fact. I'm talking about what it is that could potentially give a legitimate reason for WHY it works as it does, and RHat does a fairly good job of that. Personal perception plays a rather large role in magic, and the mages perception that the armor is a part of you makes a good amount of sense. But if that is the case, I propose this situation.
You have a Mage, specializing in medicine, augmentations, and all sort of other medical/'ware related topics. He helps to turn someone into a Cyborg, and hooks their brain up to a Steel Lynx. To that cyborg, that Drone is his body for the moment. It is a part of him, and he moves it with his thoughts. To the mage, the same applies. He looks at it like a Street Sam using a piece of 'ware. He fully believes that the drone is effectively a part of that person.
Can he target Cyborg-Brain piloting the drone, housed in the drone, and which he believes to be a part of the drone, with a Manabolt?
-
Remember mana magic targets living auras.
It's a little abstract, but think of it this way. Putting on a suit of armor is making it a part of your essential 'me'-ness. Standing behind a piece of paper does not, nor does getting into a car. The spell targets your essential 'me'-ness, your living aura.
-k
If this is the case, why am I unable to wear a pair of glasses which are required by prescription and I've worn my entire life, and have a thermographic sensor in them, and use them to target someone with their thermal signature behind said sheet of paper? Yet I can do so same with a pair of Cybereyes I spent Essence on. Unless I'm mistaken, in which case I suppose I'm talking out of my ass. I'll go check that right now to make sure.
SPELLCASTING
Can you cast spells if blind?
Sight is the most common means of establishing a connection with a target (hence the range “Line of Sight”), but by no means the only one. If you physically see, astrally perceive, or touch the target, you can cast the spell.
In situations where the player wishes for their character to use another sense (hearing, smell, echolocation, etc.) to cast a spell, it’s up to the gamemaster to decide if that is possible. At the very least, a Perception Test involving the sense in question is called for, with appropriate modifiers (Using Perception, pp.135-136, SR4A). In the case of enhanced senses, the enhanced sense must be integral to the character (i.e., cyberears with audio enhancement would work, but earplugs with audio enhancement would not). Naturally, this works better for Indirect Combat Spells than others.
It would appear that yes, installing a Cyberware Scanner into a pair of Cybereyes/Ears/Whatever else and using it to spot someones cyberarm through a wall would infact allow you to target them through a wall. Yet that same sensore, even with a close personal attachment, cannot be done without Essence being paid.
-
You can't do that, either.
-
The CCU is a separate unit from the drone - a CCU and a drone are not perceived to be a single entity; the drone is more like a car to it.
-
You can't do that, either.
Oh, I can't? Is the FAQ wrong on this matter? Look at the edited post above, with a direct quote from the FAQ.
-
The CCU is a separate unit from the drone - a CCU and a drone are not perceived to be a single entity; the drone is more like a car to it.
OOC, I am fully aware of this fact. IC, why would this be any different than a mage believing their targets armor is a part of them? If anything, the Cyborg would have a more direct and strong connection to their drone-body than a random ganger shoved into Milspec Armor, a Hazmat Suit, or any other form of armor that fully blocks line of sight to their actual body.
-
It doesn't say you can do it. It says if you insist on trying to do it without sight and your GM is willing to let you try, it'll have a minimum of a huge perception penalty.
-
It doesn't say you can do it. It says if you insist on trying to do it without sight and your GM is willing to let you try, it'll have a minimum of a huge perception penalty.
It does say you can do it. It says you may require a Perception Check in order to be capable of doing so, but simply because you have a possiblity to fail that check does not mean the act itself is impossible.
-
The CCU is a separate unit from the drone - a CCU and a drone are not perceived to be a single entity; the drone is more like a car to it.
OOC, I am fully aware of this fact. IC, why would this be any different than a mage believing their targets armor is a part of them? If anything, the Cyborg would have a more direct and strong connection to their drone-body than a random ganger shoved into Milspec Armor, a Hazmat Suit, or any other form of armor that fully blocks line of sight to their actual body.
The cyborg's connection to the vehicle is approximately the same as that of a jumped in rigger. The drone body is simply a vehicle to them, and that is how characters would perceive it.
And the FAQ, which is a questionable source at the best of times, simply makes it a matter of GM discretion.
-
"In situations where the player wishes for their character to use another sense (hearing, smell, echolocation, etc.) to cast a spell, it’s up to the gamemaster to decide if that is possible." means you can't normally do it but your GM may allow it if he wants to.
-
Meaning it's gone into "GM making up stuff" time, and outside of the standard rules.
-k
-
Damnit, now I'm doing it!
Was the sheep in full-body armor?
-
Just a bit of a note. I'm not saying that people would be immune to magic simply by wearing full-body armor. I'm saying that they wouldn't be able to be targetted for things such as Manabolt or Control Thougths/Emotions and such. Targetting the armor would still be entirely feasible with Firebolt/Ball or such spells, as they make actual physical effects which could mess someone up just as well as the normal versions would.
-
Just a bit of a note. I'm not saying that people would be immune to magic simply by wearing full-body armor. I'm saying that they wouldn't be able to be targetted for things such as Manabolt or Control Thougths/Emotions and such. Targetting the armor would still be entirely feasible with Firebolt/Ball or such spells, as they make actual physical effects which could mess someone up just as well as the normal versions would.
You've been perfectly clear on that, but you're mistaken.
-
Just a bit of a note. I'm not saying that people would be immune to magic simply by wearing full-body armor. I'm saying that they wouldn't be able to be targetted for things such as Manabolt or Control Thougths/Emotions and such. Targetting the armor would still be entirely feasible with Firebolt/Ball or such spells, as they make actual physical effects which could mess someone up just as well as the normal versions would.
You've been perfectly clear on that, but you're mistaken.
By RAW, yeah. By RAI, fluff, common sense, and logic? Not quite so much.
-
By and RAI and fluff you are mistaken. Shadowrun has never allowed full body armour or mil spec armour to prevent you from being targeted by spells. The fluff justification is that your aura extends a few centimetres beyond you and thus allows you to be targeted by the spells. A car or building would hide this aura and you would have to be pressed right up against your paper wall to be targeted. Likely even the framing for said wall would be enough to prevent targeting as it would move you far enough from the wall that your aura wouldn't leak.
It has nothing to do with what you can see in astral, as you referenced. Astral targeting and sight have nothing to do with spellcasting on the physical plane. Remember, spells like Powerbolt are also Direct but can not be used on the astral. Don't mix up the whole astral space and how things look there with how you target on the physical. If you see it, you can hit it.
-
Just a bit of a note. I'm not saying that people would be immune to magic simply by wearing full-body armor. I'm saying that they wouldn't be able to be targetted for things such as Manabolt or Control Thougths/Emotions and such. Targetting the armor would still be entirely feasible with Firebolt/Ball or such spells, as they make actual physical effects which could mess someone up just as well as the normal versions would.
You've been perfectly clear on that, but you're mistaken.
By RAW, yeah. By RAI, fluff, common sense, and logic? Not quite so much.
... Wow.
It is not intended that full body armour makes you immune to direct spells. What in the hell would make you think that was the case?
Go ahead and show me fluff indicating that worn armour has the same impact on spell targeting as a wall.
And no, by logic you remain mistaken.
-
I'm gonna find it extremely ironic for a bit that someone who ignored the FAQ on 2 occasions goes and (mis)quotes the FAQ on a third occasion to try to prove a point.
Anyway, I'm siding with the reasonable explanation that your auro isn't skindeep but goes a bit beyond that, so is targettable outside what you're wearing. However, I'm not wearing a car, there's air inbetween me and the frame. The only exception would be a frail 1/2-inch thick-plated mini with Detective Tosh Athack stuck in it.
-
Poor Tosh. Can't get no respect. Maybe if he didn't always have his hand out...
-
He lets you know he doesn't take offense of that comment if you donate 500 nuyen to the Police Officer Orphan fund.
-
Poor Tosh. Can't get no respect. Maybe if he didn't always have his hand out...
My group HATED Tosh...
Maybe it was the way I played him. ;D
-
He threw my brother's character over his shoulder once and brought her with him to have a conversation. He took him as contact from the start, and she kept making jokes to his face about whether he was still eating enough babies and goats to keep up that size of his.
-
As to Cyborgs and targeting:
Targeting and Magic
Cyborgs are diffcult to target with magic. The only living part of a jarhead—the brain—is encapsulated within the CCU which itself is enclosed within the drone body, where it is effectively safe from spell targeting. Instead, the drone body itself must be targeted by spells. Only in the event that the drone’s outer casing/armor is breached or removed would the CCU/brain become vulnerable to magical targeting—though hitting might still require a called shot.
This means that spells cast against a cyborg’s drone body must overcome Object Resistance (threshold 4+). is also means that the cyborg—or rather, its body—does not make resistance rolls against Physical spells. Mana spells are simply unable to lock on to the cyborg’s living component and are useless as a result.
When viewed from the astral, the living presence within a cyborg cannot be seen through the opaque drone body (unless the astral form sticks its head through the drone body’s shadow and into the brain’s encapsulated aura). Cyborgs do not boast the vibrant aura indicative of a living being and instead appear as drab as any other drone to assensing. Assensing may reveal information as it does with any other non-living object, but it will provide no insight into the brain controlling the drone. Unsurprisingly, the Awakened typically find cyborgs disquieting.
Most tagets believe that their clothes ae thiers enough to be part of them. CONSENCUS of the people living in the 6th World, who live with REAL magic, believe they can be tageted through their clothing and amor.
It may not make sense to you, Ninja, but it makes sense to the people living in the 6th world. We know this because the RULES tell us, the playes, that it works that way. This is so fundementally part of SR that taking it out would create a wide gulf between your table and the SR everyone else wants to play.
-
I'm not talking about the RAW of the issue at this point, and as I already said I am fully aware of that fact. I'm talking about what it is that could potentially give a legitimate reason for WHY it works as it does, and RHat does a fairly good job of that. Personal perception plays a rather large role in magic, and the mages perception that the armor is a part of you makes a good amount of sense. But if that is the case, I propose this situation.
You have a Mage, specializing in medicine, augmentations, and all sort of other medical/'ware related topics. He helps to turn someone into a Cyborg, and hooks their brain up to a Steel Lynx. To that cyborg, that Drone is his body for the moment. It is a part of him, and he moves it with his thoughts. To the mage, the same applies. He looks at it like a Street Sam using a piece of 'ware. He fully believes that the drone is effectively a part of that person.
Can he target Cyborg-Brain piloting the drone, housed in the drone, and which he believes to be a part of the drone, with a Manabolt?
I think this might be part of the confusion here. It has nothing to do with what the Mage perceives as part of the target's body, it is what the Target perceives as part of their body. Not on a conscious level, but what their spirit/soul/aura/whatever decides is a part of them. Presumably this is partially influenced by their own perceptions, and partially by the abstract rules of magic.
Extrapolating from the rules, clothing and armor (as previously stated by others) is perceived by the wearer's soul as part of them, since it moves with them, and they are wearing it the same as extremely heavy clothes, so their aura includes it.
A Cyborg still sees their drone body as a vehicle, it isn't wired into their old nerves, it is controlled by rigging, so it doesn't share their aura, the same as a car, so their spirit (or what's left of it) doesn't extend their aura to include it the way it would a cyberlimb.
That said, as the armor gets more and more bulky and gets more and more powered by servos and myomer wire bundles, it moves more and more away from armor and more towards an anthroform vehicle. At some point it stops being armor and starts being a vehicle. That point may even vary from wearer/pilot to wearer/pilot, depending on how they subconsciously define armor vs vehicle.
It is a question about where that line is drawn. You put it somewhere between clothes and heavy armor, but if MilSpec armor blocks line of sight for the purposes of magic, what about an Eve SecondSkin bodysuit with a full enclosed hood and mask? It isn't as thick, but it still blocks line of sight.
Where is the line? How thick does it need to be to block your aura? You claim that it is like being unable to see a light bulb behind three inches of steel, but what about a light bulb behind a 1mm thick blackout curtain. You still can't see the light. Does it even have to be armor? What about opaque latex?
And at that point, why wouldn't everyone who even thinks for a moment that they might encounter hostile mages wear a bodysuit with a hood under their clothes/armor/etc all the time?
Also:
Most tagets believe that their clothes ae thiers enough to be part of them. CONSENCUS of the people living in the 6th World, who live with REAL magic, believe they can be tageted through their clothing and amor.
It may not make sense to you, Ninja, but it makes sense to the people living in the 6th world. We know this because the RULES tell us, the playes, that it works that way. This is so fundementally part of SR that taking it out would create a wide gulf between your table and the SR everyone else wants to play.
Exactly.
You are starting down a slippery slope when you start throwing out rules just because you don't like the explanation of why it works that way, or can't think of a good explanation for it to work that way. It's magic. Even in-world no one completely understands it (or if they do, they aren't talking to Runners about it).